The argument that the NBN can deliver fast speeds is not the issue with many here. The 4 main things about the NBN that I am opposed to are:
1. The assumption that fast internet speed can only be delivered by government, when it has been mainly private industry that has brought computing and communications to the stage it is in today. Compare both computing and communications speeds with what they were only 10 years ago. This was mostly all done without government involvement.
The problem is that the market (in Australia) hasn't delivered fast internet speeds.
Neither the Optus or Telstra HFC networks have been expanded for over a decade. The Telstra net only passes ~25% of the population, with less than that actually able to be connected. The Optus net is even less, passing ~20% and available to ~15%. The standard to increase these networks to 100Mbps per node was ratified way back in 2007, but Telstra and Optus have only just begun updating parts of their network to it.
With the exception of new estates, we have no FTTP networks, while overseas they have been building them for a decade. In most cases by partially or fully-Government owned telcos.
The gradual improvements using ADSL and ADSL2+ have been delivered by Telstra, but not everywhere. There is only competing infrastructure in about 400 of our ~6000 exchanges.
While the private sector have delivered overseas (the US is the best example), they simply haven't done it here. One of the biggest reasons is that the fibre/cable nets in the US are funded by payTV subscriptions. That won't happen here because we have low payTV uptake due to anti-sihoning laws (which IMHO are a very good thing).
2. It is hard to predict what the needs will be in 10 years time. Speed will undoubtedly be required, but access method is constantly changing and the trend is strongly towards mobility. Although the NBN may serve as a useful backbone, does it need to go to every home?
The trend isn't a change
to mobility, it is the
addition of it. Data growth over fixed networks continues to increase much, much faster than data over wireless networks. From Q4 2009 to Q4 2010, the
ABS reported that data over wireless increased by 2,500 Terrabytes (to 16990), while data over fixed lines increased by 61,000 Terrabytes (to 174665).
Mobile broadband connections cannot physically cope with our current data needs, let alone the massive growth that we have every year. There is no mobile technology on the horizon that can overcome this, and there is no country or telecommunications provider anywhere in the World that is advocating wireless to replace fixed networks in metropolitan areas.
Then of course there is the price, which is up to
1,333 times more expensive than fixed connections.
3. The enormous cost of the NBN. Note they haven't upgraded the cost even though they are assuming more risk than previously since last weeks decision. Many would ask if investing that amount in the NBN provides the most benefit to Australia.
That's a fair argument, and there are strong opinions on either side. Personally, I have no doubt, but other feel strongly the other way.
From my POV... I think the future is undoubtedly dependent on a fast network, fibre is undoubtedly the most future-proof solution, and there will be large and widespread benefits. I also don't support comparison with 'spending' on things that don't provide a measurable return. Unlike most govt spending, the NBN actually provides measurable income, so the spending on it cannot be compared to, say, building a toll-free road.
4. And extremely importantly. There is the whole assumption that the NBN that we are being told we will get can be delivered successfully. This government has failed to handle projects and policies far less complex. Not only have they often not delivered, they have screwed up entirely, setting whole industries back years (think roof insulation). Many of us simply believe that the NBN will be another fiasco. We may end up worse off than we currently are if the NBN doesn't deliver while it stymied private investment in this same area. The attempts to stifle competition to the NBN and the secrecy surrounding many aspects of the project are clear indications that it is already heading that way.
Again, some of that is a fair argument.
I have no doubt that this Govt has stuffed things up, as all Governments do. The last one was no exception, it's just that we tend to remember the current Government's stuffups while people forget about the billion-odd we threw at the Seasprite fiasco, for example.
But the Government isn't doing the NBN. They have appointed a company to do it, full of very experienced and qualified people, and from all indications they are doing a pretty good job. Hundreds of contracts have been signed, all seems to be on budget so far and any delays are minimal and largely outside their control (ie Telstra deal). For such a massive start-up project, I'd say they are doing very well indeed.
Looking at an alternative suggested by the coalition...where Govt pay the private sector to improve the network outside profitable areas... This has far more in common with the insulation scheme that what the Government is actually doing with the NBN. While the Govt did a piss-poor job of supervising the insulation scheme, it was the private sector that provided the poor/unsafe workmanship and committed the frauds.
The "secrecy" surrounding the NBN is a fallacy promoted by Turnbull et al. As I've demonstrated, there is vast amounts of NBN info out there. The only things missing are in-depth costings for tenders etc, which I think is quite sensible to keep private. No company tells it's shareholders the detailed costings of what it expects to pay for upcoming contracts. It would be stupidity.
As for stifling competition. I have no issue with what they have done, which is to legislate that if any company wants to build a competing fast fixed-line network, then they must do so on the same terms as the NBN. That is: wholesale-only, open access. But if the private sector wanted to build a fast network, why haven't they done anything for the last 10 years? AAPT's Paul Broad is a great example. He jumped up and down about the restrictions if he wanted to build a FTTP network. Well Paul, where have you been for the last 10 years? He has never even proposed doing such a thing, why would we believe he's going to start now?
There's a big difference between what the unions
want to get through, and what they will
actually get through. I'm sure anyone who has ever dealt with such negotiations would realise that the wish list sent through by either side as a starting point is not particularly close to the eventual reality.
I would hope that they take a leaf out of the Sydney Olympics book, and get a good working relationship with the construction unions.